• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does it seem that God never intervenes in Human Suffering

arthra

Baha'i
If your God exists then why does He allow children to starve and pedophiles to exist. It is one of the most frequently asked questions of atheists and one that they think dismisses the existence of God.

My view is that God allows suffering so we can alleviate it....

In other words if there are starving children we can find ways to provide food for them...

If there's unemployment there are ways to employ people... such as the Works Progress Administration...

If there are pedophiles we can arrest them and see they get the therapy they need.

If there are wars we can establish an international court of arbitration to resolve conflicts.

If there are stillborns and miscarriages we can investigate what causes these conditions and how to alleviate them.

Can you imagine a "world" where all our needs are met and there are no challenges or goals to achieve? I can't.
 

Demonslayer

Well-Known Member
Can you imagine a "world" where all our needs are met and there are no challenges or goals to achieve? I can't.

Absolutely! We could still create art, music, write poetry and literature, hold celebrations, ride roller coasters, go out to eat, drink a little wine, play sports, games, hold conversations, build tree forts, make love, so on and so on.

Suffering as a cure for boredom seems very odd to me. It's like if I get bored I should chop off my finger so I have something to figure out.
 

arthra

Baha'i
Absolutely! We could still create art, music, write poetry and literature, hold celebrations, ride roller coasters, go out to eat, drink a little wine, play sports, games, hold conversations, build tree forts, make love, so on and so on.

Suffering as a cure for boredom seems very odd to me. It's like if I get bored I should chop off my finger so I have something to figure out.


A life with no challenges or victories... and most likely the "Art" would be placid as well.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
My view is that God allows suffering so we can alleviate it....
Then, with all due respects, you do not know the true character of God and His capabilities. God is perfect, that is a given. That means that He is literally incapable of feeling or doing anything that is not in harmony with perfection. God, therefore, cannot allow suffering because of His perfections, it is a direct result of mans choices, greed and .

In other words if there are starving children we can find ways to provide food for them...
I agree that it is a test of character and integrity to realise what you are capable or incapable of in these disastrous circumstances, but let us not forget that there are people in this world who are so wealthy that they could feed every child in the world, and still have plenty to spare, but they choose not to, and in consequence of their choice is that it is them who allow children to starve, not God. If you have the means to prevent it, and don't, then you are the one who will be held accountable for it.

If there's unemployment there are ways to employ people... such as the Works Progress Administration...

Yes, I agree, however, this is down to the science that we have come to revere so much. The introduction of new technology has made the needs of men obsolete. I saw this coming thirty or forty years ago when working in a factory where the need for men to take bottles out of crates and place them on a conveyor belt to be washed was replaced by machines that instantly made those people redundant. I witnessed half of the workforce disappear as a result of this new technology. It was inevitable because you do not have to pay a machine, whereas, men cost money, and there we are back to the greed of men and capitalism. God had nothing to do with that one. It was man who accepted the acclaim for their innovative works in making peoples lives a misery by having to live on welfare, and then call them "drop outs" and "lazy". I am not saying that it is wrong for science to develop new technology, but surely it would have benefitted mankind far more to keep those machines out of the work place for the sole reason of giving men's jobs and giving them a better standard of living which then creates a happy society. That way the employer and employee are both satisfied instead of just the employer.

If there are pedophiles we can arrest them and see they get the therapy they need.

There are pedophiles because of the immoralities of mankind that have gradually increased in veracity to a point where we can barely control the animalistic nature of mankind. It is the acceptance of perverse sex between same sex couples as normal that has changed indecency into acceptable decency. It is probably the fluoride in our water, a poison, that has dumbed us all down to say nothing about these abominations performed by men on each other. So gullible have we become that we actually accept it when gays say that it is natural because animals do it, even though it is not a cognitive choice by them. We readily accept it when a few gay scientists claim that it is normal because of the illusive gay gene that they are born with, even though research into identical twins have disproved that hypothesis without any conceivable doubt. There is always a "what if" with gays. If it is not a gay gene then "what if" it is the action of a cluster of genes, or hormones, or anything that makes us appear normal. Again, we come back to the choices that mankind make. We have sexual perversion in our world today because we have allowed perverse sexual acts and practices to become acceptable in our society. God played no part in that.
If there are wars we can establish an international court of arbitration to resolve conflicts.

Do you know how profitable wars are? The logistics alone runs into the billions without ammunition and weaponry. The Iraq war is one of the most documented unnecessary wars on record. It was a war based on oil and the profit made from financing a war. Most of the companies that supplied everything needed to competently fight a war were actually owned by congressmen and senators. Life is not a consideration in war, it is the new cadillac or swimming pool that Senator Smute wants that holds the importance. Again, we are back to capitalism and the greed of men. God did not allow that to happen, it was men who intentionally created by blowing up their own buildings killing over 3000 innocent people that gave them the backing they needed to go to war, in order to feed their bank accounts.
If there are stillborns and miscarriages we can investigate what causes these conditions and how to alleviate them.

The cause of stillborns and miscarriages is beyond my understanding, however, I read a article recently that blamed the weakening of the gene pool by keeping the unwell to live a lot longer thus perpetuating the inherent weaknesses. If that is true then the blame again lies with new technology that keeps us alive. It is a very dodgy subject as to alleviate it we would have to control the mortality of the world and determine who can procreate and who cannot. I think that it is a natural result of a growing population where no one is to blame.

Can you imagine a "world" where all our needs are met and there are no challenges or goals to achieve? I can't

I no longer need to imagine it, it is almost here.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Boy oh boy, does this whining and victimization ever get tiring.

I don't think you're cut out for debate forums.

A debating forum is a place for exchanging beliefs and opinion. You have defined those beliefs and opinions as "Whining" and a "victimisation" even though just by saying that, you are whining and victimising me. You then question my suitability to be here. How much more ironic can you get. It is those who intentionally irritate and offend that should not be here, but most importantly, it is those who do not believe in Divinity that should not be here. How can you qualify being here when you are an atheist.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
Because their beliefs and indoctrination of tenets are creating mass delusion (imo)

How can someone else's beliefs indoctrinate anybody else. Surely it is our choice to be indoctrinated. I, for one, am indoctrinated by Christianity and the Holy Bible because I am a believer in it, so I wanted it. How is the dogma of religion causing mass delusion? If anything, the world is suffering with the exact opposite.
 

EtuMalku

Abn Iblis ابن إبليس
How can someone else's beliefs indoctrinate anybody else. Surely it is our choice to be indoctrinated. I, for one, am indoctrinated by Christianity and the Holy Bible because I am a believer in it, so I wanted it. How is the dogma of religion causing mass delusion? If anything, the world is suffering with the exact opposite.
Children whose minds are a blank slate are a favorite in Abrahamic indoctrination.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
A debating forum is a place for exchanging beliefs and opinion. You have defined those beliefs and opinions as "Whining" and a "victimisation" even though just by saying that, you are whining and victimising me. You then question my suitability to be here. How much more ironic can you get. It is those who intentionally irritate and offend that should not be here, but most importantly, it is those who do not believe in Divinity that should not be here. How can you qualify being here when you are an atheist.
One does not have to have a religious belief to debate and discuss religion, philosophy and/or politics.

I defined your actions as whining and victimization because that's what I see you doing over and over when people challenge your ideas, and I find it rather irritating, accusatory and unfair. We're all just here to debate ideas.
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
*Provocative: which mean that you are intentionally and deliberately being:
Annoying, irritating, exasperating, infuriating,provoking, maddening, goading, vexing, galling;
affronting, insulting, offensive, inflaming, rousing,arousing, inflammatory, incendiary, controversial;

Something inside of you wants to emotionally hurt someones feeling because they do not believe the same as you. It is a poor demonstration of empathy and understanding.
.

What? Me inflaming and maddening? I am just a little girl from Sweden :(

By the way, biblically you should be happy to experience these scuffing and ridicule, if any. It might indicate that you will soon meet Jesus in the clouds. So, check the weather report In order to be ready.

Isn't there a Christian prophecy that announces the end of times (whatever that means) when you get more of this?

At present, all this seems to just announce the end of you keeping cool. :)

Ciao

- viole
 
Last edited:

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Firstly, to say that God is imaginary is not only carelessly *provocative and argumentative, it is a statement made in total ignorance of the facts, that 2.2 billion Christians say different. Just because your lifestyle is not conducive to the Spirit of God, therefore, making you ignorant to His very real existence, does not mean that He is imaginary, it just means that you are not privy to Him. 2.2 billion Christian, that is twice as many Christians then atheists, would beggar to disagree.

.

There are seven billion people living on earth. True, most believe in God. Many of them think He can look like an elephant, others think that He drops black stones on the desert, for some reason, others think He is a great juju at the bottom of the sea. And then, less than a third believe He had a son who was unreacheable for three days for our sins.

So, your Christian God does not seem to enjoy the majority of the shares. By far. Independently from what atheists say.

Ciao

- viole
 

Demonslayer

Well-Known Member
There are seven billion people living on earth. True, most believe in God. Many of them think He can look like an elephant, others think that He drops black stones on the desert, for some reason, others think He is a great juju at the bottom of the sea.

I think He throws touchdowns for the New England Patriots. :)
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
One does not have to have a religious belief to debate and discuss religion, philosophy and/or politics.

No, I agree, one does not have to be religious to debate philosophy and politics because they are subjects that most people have an opinion of, however, why would any level headed atheist, who believes that Christians are all deluded and God does not exist, frequent a debating forum called Religious Forum where they discuss Christianity and God. I somehow think that confrontation is going to be the inevitable outcome, something that anyone with half a brain would be able to deduce. Now ether that person is lacking in the intelligence department for not realising that contention will almost certainly be the result of a debate between a theist and an atheist, or they are here because they enjoy to contend and ridicule Christians, I think that the latter is probably true. Personally, if I was an atheist then this would be the very last place that you would find me, unless I had a disposition to anonymously argue on line because I am incapable of doing it in person.

I defined your actions as whining and victimization because that's what I see you doing over and over when people challenge your ideas, and I find it rather irritating, accusatory and unfair. We're all just here to debate ideas.

By defining my actions as whining and victimization you are knowingly contravening a well known rule on this forum. You are attacking my person and not the arguments I put forward. You break the rules a lot, don't you? You are not here to debate ideas as your ideas are fixed and rigid, God does not exist in your world and you believe that He is a figment of our imagination. You debate from total incredulity so you will never debate objectively. So, what is your motive for being here. To win arguments that will compensate for your own failings or to immerse yourself in arguments that you will never concede to, even if your defence is ridiculous. I understand exactly why you do not believe but with your attitude you will never understand why I do.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
There are seven billion people living on earth. True, most believe in God. Many of them think He can look like an elephant, others think that He drops black stones on the desert, for some reason, others think He is a great juju at the bottom of the sea. And then, less than a third believe He had a son who was unreacheable for three days for our sins.

I didn't know that, can you just post the evidence that you must have to corroborate such extreme claims. You do have evidence, don't you?

So, your Christian God does not seem to enjoy the majority of the shares. By far. Independently from what atheists say.

I didn't say that he did. I said that there are twice as many Christians in our world then there are atheists. I believe that muslims have just out numbered us.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
No, I agree, one does not have to be religious to debate philosophy and politics because they are subjects that most people have an opinion of, however, why would any level headed atheist, who believes that Christians are all deluded and God does not exist, frequent a debating forum called Religious Forum where they discuss Christianity and God.
Why do you think all atheists feel that way? I don't find that to be the case.
I somehow think that confrontation is going to be the inevitable outcome, something that anyone with half a brain would be able to deduce. Now ether that person is lacking in the intelligence department for not realising that contention will almost certainly be the result of a debate between a theist and an atheist, or they are here because they enjoy to contend and ridicule Christians, I think that the latter is probably true. Personally, if I was an atheist then this would be the very last place that you would find me, unless I had a disposition to anonymously argue on line because I am incapable of doing it in person.
There are plenty of discussions going on around here at any given moment between atheists and religious followers that are quite civil in nature. Some are even productive. Of course, contention will occur as well. But I don't see anything wrong with that. Plenty of discussions surrounding just about any topic you can think of can and will result in contention.


By defining my actions as whining and victimization you are knowingly contravening a well known rule on this forum. You are attacking my person and not the arguments I put forward. You break the rules a lot, don't you? You are not here to debate ideas as your ideas are fixed and rigid, God does not exist in your world and you believe that He is a figment of our imagination. You debate from total incredulity so you will never debate objectively. So, what is your motive for being here. To win arguments that will compensate for your own failings or to immerse yourself in arguments that you will never concede to, even if your defence is ridiculous. I understand exactly why you do not believe but with your attitude you will never understand why I do.
I've never actually shared with you what I think about god(s) so I don't know where you're pulling all this from.

I find your arguments to be lacking in relevant content a lot of the time, as I have pointed out to you before. When someone disagrees or contradicts your arguments, you often fall into victim mode which looks like nothing more than a cop out to me. We're all being victimized then, since our arguments are constantly being challenged on this forum. We can choose to address the content of the discussion, or we can choose to take arguments against ours as personal attacks. The former is productive (for the most part) while the latter is not. That's why I said maybe debating isn't for you.
 
Top